Michael Flynn asks D.C. Circuit to dismiss case, replace judge

Site Supporter

I hope this works. Hard to think of a modern individual more mistreated by the justice system. Prayers for him and his lawyer.

MICHAEL FLYNN ASKS D.C. CIRCUIT TO DISMISS CASE, REPLACE JUDGE
Michael Flynn’s lawyer filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Tuesday, seeking a “writ of mandamus” to compel a federal district court to dismiss the charges against him, as the Department of Justice (DOJ) requested last week.

A Democrat hack. He should be impeached from his office for his blatant disregard of the law and Constitutional separation of powers doctrine.

Click to expand...

I want to say you can’t make this stuff up, but it feels like they’re getting it from some off-the-wall John Grisham thriller. It certainly doesn’t sound like sound judging. But then, that’s Democrats for you. Bizarre.

Site Supporter

Trump should just short circuit the judge and pardon Flynn if this doesn't work.

He has plenty of cause.

Click to expand...

If all else fails he will, but the deck seems to be stacked in Flynn's favor. This judge is going to get struck down. He's violating a recent SC unanimous decision. I believe Flynn would rather be exonerated than pardoned.

Site Supporter

This judge is going to get struck down. He's violating a recent SC unanimous decision.

Click to expand...

Which "recent SC unanimous decision" are you referring to? If you are referring to U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith, it is essentially irrelevant, since that ruling is about a court (specifically the Ninth Circuit) seeking "friend of the court" briefs to decide the case, by bringing in arguments that were not given by counsel for either side. The circumstances of the Flynn case are completely different. The case has already been decided.

Flynn has pleaded guilty on two occasions. He has sworn to the court, twice, that the charges brought against him are true. He has been in the sentencing phase for a long time now. His fate has been in the hands of the judge, who has the responsibility of ensuring that his actions reflect "the public good."

If Flynn was not guilty of the charges to which he pleaded guilty on two occasions, then he has perjured himself before the court twice. That cannot stand. The judge has seen the unredacted background materials and charges against Flynn, so he has context for the reasons why Flynn pleaded the way he did as part of his plea deal. The government suddenly changing its position without demonstrating that the evidence was faulty doesn't change the fact that Flynn has lied to either the FBI or the court, or both, and needs to be held accountable for the public good.

Site Supporter

Which "recent SC unanimous decision" are you referring to? If you are referring to U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith, it is essentially irrelevant, since that ruling is about a court (specifically the Ninth Circuit) seeking "friend of the court" briefs to decide the case, by bringing in arguments that were not given by counsel for either side. The circumstances of the Flynn case are completely different. The case has already been decided.

Flynn has pleaded guilty on two occasions. He has sworn to the court, twice, that the charges brought against him are true. He has been in the sentencing phase for a long time now. His fate has been in the hands of the judge, who has the responsibility of ensuring that his actions reflect "the public good."

If Flynn was not guilty of the charges to which he pleaded guilty on two occasions, then he has perjured himself before the court twice. That cannot stand. The judge has seen the unredacted background materials and charges against Flynn, so he has context for the reasons why Flynn pleaded the way he did as part of his plea deal. The government suddenly changing its position without demonstrating that the evidence was faulty doesn't change the fact that Flynn has lied to either the FBI or the court, or both, and needs to be held accountable for the public good.

Click to expand...

You dont have a clue what you are talking about. People change their plea all the time. Flynn was coerced to plead guilty. Recent documents show the misconduct by the FBI.

Its sad you want to ignore this and have an innocent man destroyed for political reasons.

Site Supporter

I guess everything I know about the law, my own research (reviewing case law), and my own thinking should bow to your unsupported political opinions that sound suspiciously like the political entertainment pundits on cable television and talk radio.

Your client understands that the sentence in this case will be imposed in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), upon consideration of the Sentencing Guidelines. Your client further understands that the sentence to be imposed is a matter solely within the discretion of the Court. Your client acknowledges that the Court is not obligated to follow any recommendation of the Government at the time of sentencing or to grant a downward departure based on your client’s substantial assistance to the Government, even if the Government files a motion pursuant to Section 5K1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. Your client understands that neither the Government's recommendation nor the Sentencing Guidelines are binding on the Court.

Your client acknowledges that your client’s entry of a guilty plea to the charged offense authorizes the Court to impose any sentence, up to and including the statutory maximum sentence, which may be greater than the applicable Guidelines range. The Government cannot, and does not, make any promise or representation as to what sentence your client will receive. Moreover, it is understood that your client will have no right to withdraw your client’s plea of guilty should the Court impose a sentence that is outside the Guidelines range or if the Court does not follow the Government?s sentencing recommendation. The Government and your client will be bound by this Agreement, regardless of the sentence imposed by the Court. Any effort by your client to withdraw the guilty plea because of the length of the sentence shall constitute a breach of this Agreement.​

Moreover, the judge has a responsibility to rule in the public interest and ensure that the proceedings are not tainted by impropriety. AG Barr's publicly-known activities ever since the Mueller Report was turned in demonstrate impropriety.

Flynn was coerced to plead guilty. Recent documents show the misconduct by the FBI.

Click to expand...

You are referring to heavily-redacted e-mails that demonstrate that the FBI agents were going to give Flynn an opportunity to lie by not telling him everything they knew. In other words, as a police officer friend of mine would say, they didn't ask a question where they don't already know the answer. If he told the truth or declined to answer the question, there would be no issue. The moral of the story: Don't lie to investigators.

Its sad you want to ignore this and have an innocent man destroyed for political reasons.

Click to expand...

I'm not ignoring anything. We are not talking about an "innocent man." He formally pleaded to the court that he lied to the FBI, and it is the judge's responsibility to act in the public interest.

Site Supporter

Which "recent SC unanimous decision" are you referring to? If you are referring to U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith, it is essentially irrelevant, since that ruling is about a court (specifically the Ninth Circuit) seeking "friend of the court" briefs to decide the case, by bringing in arguments that were not given by counsel for either side. The circumstances of the Flynn case are completely different. The case has already been decided.

Flynn has pleaded guilty on two occasions. He has sworn to the court, twice, that the charges brought against him are true. He has been in the sentencing phase for a long time now. His fate has been in the hands of the judge, who has the responsibility of ensuring that his actions reflect "the public good."

If Flynn was not guilty of the charges to which he pleaded guilty on two occasions, then he has perjured himself before the court twice. That cannot stand. The judge has seen the unredacted background materials and charges against Flynn, so he has context for the reasons why Flynn pleaded the way he did as part of his plea deal. The government suddenly changing its position without demonstrating that the evidence was faulty doesn't change the fact that Flynn has lied to either the FBI or the court, or both, and needs to be held accountable for the public good.

Click to expand...

Flynn was coerced to plead guilty by the Justice Department with threats to charge his son with the failure to register as a foreign agent, a charge which the former Southern District of New York Prosecutor Andrew McCarthy said was something that was almost never used by the DOJ before the Muelller Investigation.

Recently released FBI documents shows that there was a conspiracy among high level Justice Department officials to go after General Flynn, with one FBI official writing: "What’s our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired"?’ The initial interrogation of General Flynn at the White House was done by the FBI which violated it's own protocols in dealing with White House officials according to it's then director, James Comey. The whole thing was going to be dropped by the FBI because of the lack of any evidence that a crime had been committed but the "investigation" was saved by none other than the disgraced former FBI agent Peter Strzok.

It was a setup by the Justice Department, specifically the FBI, a conspiracy by officials at the highest levels of the DOJ and anything that came from their actions is to be considered "fruit from the poison tree" and thus the resulting chargers could and should be dropped. AG Barr made the correct decision in dropping the charges against General Flynn.

Site Supporter

Im referring to not only the recent documents but the fact that they show they were trying to get him to lie, that fact that they financially destroyed him and the threatened to do the same to his son.

Its clear that they were trying to pressure him to give them some dirt on Trump or else. Hes nit the only one they did this to.

As for his having lied, it is clear that the original agents who actually interviewed Flynn did not believe he lied. In fact the investigation was going to be closed until the infamous jan 5 meeting with Obama.

This is all a political hit job. This is what we have been saying from the beginning. As I said in another post, we told you so.

Site Supporter

I'm not ignoring anything. We are not talking about an "innocent man." He formally pleaded to the court that he lied to the FBI, and it is the judge's responsibility to act in the public interest.

Click to expand...

Wrong! The Judge in question is not the prosecuting entity, he is strictly a part of the Judicial Branch of the government. He is overstepping his bounds as he tries to keep the Flynn case going in light of the Justice Department dropping the charges. It is now gone into the constitutional "separation of powers" realm. Judge Sullivan has no authority to keep the prosecution going, none whatsoever.

General Flynn's attorney Sidney Powell said she requested "Friend of the Court" briefs be allowed on behalf of General Flynn some 24 times, all of which Judge Sullivan denied. Now Judge Sullivan is allowing "Friend of the Court" briefs by those who are AGAINST General Flynn and for a continued prosecution. Can you say the word "bias" here?

Judge Sullivan has clearly overstepped the "separation of powers" doctrine is now showing that he has either a personal or political animas against General Flynn. He should be either removed from the case or impeached from the Judiciary for his blatant malfeasance concerning this situation.

Site Supporter

It Looks Like We've Glossed Over a Key Portion About Michael Flynn in DOJ IG Report on Crossfire Hurricane

Well, it looks like we glossed over something last December when the Department of Justice Inspector General released its report about the FBI’s spying operation into the Trump campaign—Crossfire Hurricane—and the FISA abuses that occurred under the Obama administration’s watch. Remember, the FBI used a politically biased piece of opposition research to secure a spy warrant against Carter Page. The document, the Trump dossier, was largely unverified but cited as credible evidence. It contained glaring errors that could be corrected by a Google search. Yet, the media harped on the “no bias” during this whole operation bit, which is a misrepresentation, which Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel clarified eons ago. The Trump-Russia collusion myth was grounded in this document—and it was total garbage.

Site Supporter

It Looks Like We've Glossed Over a Key Portion About Michael Flynn in DOJ IG Report on Crossfire Hurricane

Well, it looks like we glossed over something last December when the Department of Justice Inspector General released its report about the FBI’s spying operation into the Trump campaign—Crossfire Hurricane—and the FISA abuses that occurred under the Obama administration’s watch. Remember, the FBI used a politically biased piece of opposition research to secure a spy warrant against Carter Page. The document, the Trump dossier, was largely unverified but cited as credible evidence. It contained glaring errors that could be corrected by a Google search. Yet, the media harped on the “no bias” during this whole operation bit, which is a misrepresentation, which Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel clarified eons ago. The Trump-Russia collusion myth was grounded in this document—and it was total garbage.

Of course. The whole thing was a political witch hunt of the highest order perpetrated by the highest echelons of government agencies who are supposed to remain politically neutral. Thankfully some of the leading characters have already been fired and now we need the hand of Lady Justice to do what needs to be done. Charges, arrests, and the fairest trials that have ever been conducted in this nation needs to be done so the truth can be finally laid out before the American people.

Site Supporter

The Government and your client will be bound by this Agreement, regardless of the sentence imposed by the Court. Any effort by your client to withdraw the guilty plea because of the length of the sentence shall constitute a breach of this Agreement.

Click to expand...

Once the charges have been withdrawn by the Justice Department, I would think that the "agreement" becomes null and void, no? Notice the words "regardless of the sentence imposed by the Court". The "agreement" seems to concern the sentencing part and the sentencing part only.

In dropping the charges AG Barr said: “Well, you know, people sometimes plead to things that turn out not to be crimes,. And the Department of Justice is not persuaded that this was material to any legitimate counterintelligence investigation. So it was not a crime.”

He further stated: “I also think it’s sad that nowadays these partisan feelings are so strong that people have lost any sense of justice. And the groups that usually worry about civil liberties and making sure that there’s proper procedures followed and standards seem to be ignoring it and willing to destroy people’s lives and see great injustices done.”

Asked a second time about Flynn’s admission that he lied to the FBI, Barr reiterated that people “sometimes plead to things” that later turn out not to be illegal.

“And as I said, the question of lying, you know, it’s something he would know about,” Barr said. “On its face, as [former FBI] Director [James] Comey said, it’s not so clear. But the question of materiality is not something he would know about. That’s something that the government knows about. And we have now gotten into it, drilled down, obtained new information.”

Site Supporter

Flynn has pleaded guilty on two occasions. He has sworn to the court, twice, that the charges brought against him are true. He has been in the sentencing phase for a long time now. His fate has been in the hands of the judge, who has the responsibility of ensuring that his actions reflect "the public good."....

Click to expand...

Wow you are clueless. Flynn made a plea bargain knowing he had no recourse. These happen all the time. But if you really believe he is guilty, please tell us what you believe he actually did to deserve to be charged.

Something tells me you're going to take the 5th.

I'll say this. As awful as your comments are, I'd never wish what happened to Flynn on you. You'd of done the same thing in his place, sacrificing for your family (at least I hope you would).

Which "recent SC unanimous decision" are you referring to? If you are referring to U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith, it is essentially irrelevant, since that ruling is about a court (specifically the Ninth Circuit) seeking "friend of the court" briefs to decide the case, by bringing in arguments that were not given by counsel for either side. The circumstances of the Flynn case are completely different. The case has already been decided.

Flynn has pleaded guilty on two occasions. He has sworn to the court, twice, that the charges brought against him are true. He has been in the sentencing phase for a long time now. His fate has been in the hands of the judge, who has the responsibility of ensuring that his actions reflect "the public good."

If Flynn was not guilty of the charges to which he pleaded guilty on two occasions, then he has perjured himself before the court twice. That cannot stand. The judge has seen the unredacted background materials and charges against Flynn, so he has context for the reasons why Flynn pleaded the way he did as part of his plea deal. The government suddenly changing its position without demonstrating that the evidence was faulty doesn't change the fact that Flynn has lied to either the FBI or the court, or both, and needs to be held accountable for the public good.

Click to expand...

The DOJ clearly gave their legal conclusions, fact by fact, as to why the charges were dropped. They clearly demonstrated why prosecution was not justified and indeed would be an injustice.

We hear so many times when prosecutors refuse to back off convictions in spite of evidence of innocence or misconduct by prosecutors. We should be grateful for honest prosecutors that admit when mistakes or misconduct occur and seek to remedy it through proper legal channels.

Every person has a legal right to change a plea, especially when evidence of misconduct by prosecutors is revealed. He is in no danger of being prosecuted for changing his plea.